Open AccessVol 10 No 1 Research Effect of oral decontamination with chlorhexidine on the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia: a meta-analysis Lilibeth A Pineda, Ranime G Saliba and Ali A
Trang 1Open Access
Vol 10 No 1
Research
Effect of oral decontamination with chlorhexidine on the
incidence of nosocomial pneumonia: a meta-analysis
Lilibeth A Pineda, Ranime G Saliba and Ali A El Solh
Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY, USA
Corresponding author: Ali A El Solh, solh@buffalo.edu
Received: 13 Dec 2005 Revisions requested: 16 Jan 2006 Revisions received: 25 Jan 2006 Accepted: 1 Feb 2006 Published: 20 Feb 2006
Critical Care 2006, 10:R35 (doi:10.1186/cc4837)
This article is online at: http://ccforum.com/content/10/1/R35
© 2006 Pineda et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Introduction Nosocomial pneumonia is a significant cause of
in-hospital morbidity and mortality Oral care interventions have
great potential to reduce the occurrence of nosocomial
pneumonia Studies using topical antiseptic agents yielded
mixed results We hypothesized that the use of chlorhexidine for
oral decontamination would reduce the incidence of nosocomial
pneumonia in patients requiring mechanical ventilation
Methods This study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled
trials assessing the effect of chlorhexidine on the incidence of
nosocomial pneumonia Data sources were Medline, EMBASE,
Cochrane library, citation review of relevant primary and review
articles, and contact with expert informants Out of 1,251
articles screened, 4 randomized, controlled trials were identified
that included a total of 1,202 patients Descriptive and outcome
data were extracted by two reviewers independently Main
outcome measures were the incidence of nosocomial
pneumonia, and mortality A random effects model was used
Results The incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in the control
group was 7% (41 out of 615) compared to 4% (24 out of 587)
in the treatment group Gram-negative bacteria accounted for
78% of the total isolates, with Pseudomonas aeruginosa being
the most frequently isolated pathogen irrespective of the intervention provided Duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit length of stay were comparable between the two groups Overall, the use of oral decontamination with chlorhexidine did not affect the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia (odds ratio of 0.42; 95% confidence interval 0.16– 1.06) or the mortality rate (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.28–2.11)
Conclusion The use of oral decontamination with chlorhexidine
did not result in significant reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in patients who received mechanical ventilation, nor altered the mortality rate The lack of benefit may reflect the few studies conducted in this area Future trials should focus on a combination strategy of mechanical and pharmacological interventions
Introduction
Nosocomial pneumonia (NP) is a frequent complication in
crit-ically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation and is
respon-sible for a significant in-hospital morbidity and mortality
Multiple hospital-associated risk factors for NP have been
identified These risk factors are thought to contribute to
increased bacterial colonization of the aerodigestive tract and/
or facilitate entry of pathogenic bacteria to the lower
respira-tory tract Among these factors are the use of nasogastric
tubes, a supine position, re-intubation, manipulation of airway/
ventilator circuits, pooling of subglottic secretions, transfusion
of packed red blood cells, pH altering agents, and dental
plaque colonization [1-4]
While the oral flora of a healthy individual is largely composed
of viridans streptococcus, the oral flora undergoes a major shift during intensive care unit (ICU) stay from Gram-positive streptococci to predominantly Gram-negative organisms, including pathogens responsible for NP The role of these pathogens are highlighted in epidemiological studies showing
a high concordance between the bacteria isolated from the oropharyngeal cavity and those recovered from tracheal aspi-rates [4,5] Recently, our laboratory, using molecular genotyp-ing, has confirmed this association between pathogens colonizing dental plaques and those responsible for NP in the critically ill institutionalized elderly [6] As a result, multiple interventional trials have been initiated to assess the efficacy
CI = confidence interval; ICU = intensive care unit; NP = nosocomial pneumonia.
Trang 2of topical oral antiseptic agents on the incidence of
ventilator-associated pneumonia
Chlorhexidine is an antimicrobial cationic compound active
against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria It increases the
bac-terial cell wall permeability in a dose dependent fashion by
interacting with anionic receptors on the bacterial surface Its
therapeutic benefit has been demonstrated in reducing dental
plaque and treating gingivitis [7] By virtue of its rapid
reduc-tion of oropharyngeal bacterial load [8], several studies have
evaluated the effectiveness of oral chlorhexidine in preventing
NP [9-12] These trials have yielded conflicting results Hence,
we conducted a meta-analysis of available clinical trials to
eval-uate the efficacy of oral chlorhexidine application on the
inci-dence of NP in patients who required mechanical ventilation
Materials and methods
Search strategy
We conducted this review in accordance with
recommenda-tions put forth by the QUOROM Group [13] We searched
MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005), Biosis Previews (1990 to
August 2005), PubMed (mid 1960s to August 2005),
EMBASE (January 1990 to August 2005) and Cochrane
Library to identify prospective, randomized trials of oral
chlo-rhexidine in patients requiring mechanical ventilation The
fol-lowing key words were used: chlorhexidine, dental plaques,
oropharyngeal decontamination, ventilator, nosocomial,
hospi-tal-acquired, health-care acquired pneumonia AND
rand-omized, controlled trials or controlled clinical trials,
randomized In addition, we searched abstracts of conference
proceedings, references lists of review articles and retrieved
studies We included studies regardless of date, language, or
publication status The search strategy was conducted
itera-tively until no new potential randomized controlled trial
cita-tions were found on review of the reference lists of retrieved
articles
Study selection and data extraction
The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials in
patients requiring mechanical ventilation We excluded open
label, non-comparative, and non-randomized studies We also
excluded studies with the option of combining mechanical and
pharmacological oral care for the prevention of dental plaques
Trials that used chlorhexidine as a body or vaginal wash, or
endotracheal tubes impregnated with chlorhexidine were excluded The main outcome measure of the study was the incidence of NP defined as pneumonia occurring 48 hours after hospital admission Respiratory infections that had no new or progressive radiographic findings were not included Mortality rate was included as a secondary outcome Two reviewers screened independently identified titles and abstracts Potentially relevant studies were retrieved and the full text examined When important data were not reported, we contacted the authors for information We assessed reported randomization methods and completeness of data but avoided use of a formal or aggregated score for quality assessment because such use can produce inconsistent results [14] Dis-crepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus
Statistical analysis
Incidences of NP and death were treated as dichotomous var-iables Data analysis was performed using the random effects model with meta-analysis software (RevMan 4.2; Cochrane collaboration, Oxford, UK) We used risk differences com-puted on the basis of odds ratios from each of the randomized trials and their respective 95% confidence interval (CI) Statis-tical heterogeneity for all variables was assessed by using the
I2 measure because this measure is independent of the number of studies that are pooled and of the effect-size metric [15] To assess for possible publication bias, we used the test proposed by Egger and colleagues [16], which provides an
assessment of funnel-plot asymmetry (expressed as a P value)
by applying an inverse-variance weighted approach For each variable, studies were assigned a Mantel-Haenszel weight that was directly proportional to the sample size and inversely
pro-portional to the variance of each study A two-sided P value
less than 0.05 was considered significant
Results
Our literature search identified 1,251 potential relevant cita-tions Of these, we considered seven citations for possible inclusion in the meta-analysis [9-12,17-19] These seven pub-lications were identified through Medline searches No unpub-lished studies, personal communications, or abstract satisfied the inclusion criteria We excluded two out of the seven stud-ies because they were not randomized and one because it used a single application of chlorhexidine [17-19]
Table 1
Characteristics of the randomized trials included in the meta-analysis
BID, twice a day; CHX, chlorhexidine; ICU, intensive care unit; TID, three times a day.
Trang 3Table 1 provides information on the patients and design of the
included studies Four studies that fulfilled the criteria [9-12]
Two studies [9,11] had a double-blind placebo controlled
design and one trial [10] was single-blinded because a
com-parable placebo to chlorhexidine was not available at the time
the study was initiated The remaining study [12] was a
pro-spective, case-controlled design comparing chlorhexidine to
Listerine Overall, 1,202 patients were enrolled in the selected
studies Two out of the four clinical trials were done on
patients undergoing cardiac surgery (coronary aortic bypass
surgery or valve replacement surgery) [9,12] The other two
tri-als enrolled patients from ICUs requiring mechanical
ventila-tion [10,11] All participants were intubated by oro- or
nasotracheal tubes Patients with tracheostomy were included
in one [10] but excluded in the other ICU trial [11] In the two
trials with heart surgeries, antibiotics were administered 12 or
24 hours preoperatively and 48 hours postoperatively as per
routine heart surgery protocol [9,12] Cefuroxime was used in
both trials for aortocoronary bypass subjects while
vancomy-cin was provided for those scheduled for valve surgery In
con-trast to the trials conducted in ICUs, treatment with
chlorhexidine was initiated preoperatively and continued
post-operatively Frequency of chlorhexidine application ranged
from twice a day in the ICU group to three times in the group
of patients undergoing heart surgery The duration of
treat-ment varied also from 10 days to 28 days or until extubation,
diagnosis of pneumonia, discharge from ICU, or death
Table 2 shows the clinical characteristics of the patients
enrolled in these trials The mean patient age was 58.5 years
The severity of illness and the dental score index for the
criti-cally ill patients were comparable between the controls and
the treatment groups The overall incidence of NP in the
chlo-rhexidine-treated group was 4% (25/587) compared to 7%
(41/615) in the control group Three studies reported on the
microbial isolates responsible for the lower respiratory tract
infections [9-11] A total of 20 organisms out of 21 cases were
recovered from the treatment groups compared to 30 out of
the 39 control cases Gram-negative bacteria accounted for
78% (39 out of 50) of the total isolates The distribution of
these isolates was comparable among the two groups (46%
for the chlorhexidine-treated group and 54% for the control
group, p = 0.7) The species most commonly represented among the Gram-negatives was Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Of the studies that reported on the duration of intubation and length of stay, the weighted mean differences between the treated group and the control group did not reach statistical significance
As shown in Figure 1, although the point estimate for the pooled odds ratio favored chlorhexidine treatment in the pre-vention of NP, this difference was not statistically significant
(0.42, 95% CI 0.61–1.06; p = 0.07) Similarly, there were also
no significant difference in mortality rate between the two
groups (0.77, 95% CI 0.28–2.11; p = 0.6; Figure 2) For these
estimates, we found no evidence of statistical heterogeneity or
publication bias (p = 0.13 and p = 0.68 for the incidence of
pneumonia and mortality, respectively)
Discussion
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the incidence of
NP and rate of mortality are not reduced by administration of the oral antiseptic agent chlorhexidine Of the four trials that were selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis, only one trial showed a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of
NP [10]; yet, the study failed to adjust for inclusion of repeated observations Moreover, DeRiso and coworkers [9] reported a 69% reduction in overall nosocomial respiratory infections, but when a comparison of the rate of lower respiratory tract infec-tions was presented, the difference between the treatment and control groups was not statistically significant If
chlorhex-idine treatment has been proven to be an effective therapy in
vitro for eradication of bacteria responsible for oropharyngeal
colonization, why did it not improve the rate of lower respira-tory tract infections in mechanically ventilated patients?
A review of studies that have examined oral and lung coloniza-tion have shown that changes in the microenvironment of the oral cavity likely play a key role in the colonization of the oropharynx with NP related pathogens [20,21] Serial exami-nation of dental plaques of critically ill patients revealed that while the frequency of dental colonization increased in
criti-Table 2
Clinical characteristics and outcome measures of trials included in the meta-analysis
Reference SAPS II CAO dental index Incidence of pneumonia ICU LOS (days) Mortality rate
C, control group; CAO, caries-absent-occluded; ICU, intensive care unit; LOS, length of stay; NR, not reported; SAPS, Simplified Acute Physiology Score; T, treatment group.
Trang 4cally ill patients, the density of bacterial pathogens following
treatment with chlorhexidine remained stable [11] The lack of
a complete decontaminating effect of chlorhexidine on dental
plaques might suggest, among other things, impairment of
innate oral immunity and/or loss of protective function of saliva
Because salivary flow provides a mechanical tool for removal
of plaques and microorganisms, reduced circulation of saliva
leads to microbial overgrowth, accumulation of dental plaques,
and rampant dental caries [22,23] This constant buildup of
dental plaques might explain the failure to completely
eradi-cate microorganisms with chlorhexidine treatment
Formation of biofilm is another potential microenvironmental
factor that may influence the eradication of ventilator
associ-ated pneumonia relassoci-ated pathogens from dental plaques
Four-rier and colleagues [11] noted that microbiological analysis of
dental plaques obtained from patients with late onset
ventila-tor associated pneumonia revealed a high prevalence of highly
resistant bacterial pathogens (Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter,
and Enterobacter species) that were not eliminated by topical
chlorhexidine Notoriously, upon attachment, P aeruginosa
activates a set of genes responsible for the release of
diffusi-ble homoserine lactones (quorum sensors) These organic
molecules promote biofilm formation, which protects bacteria from host defenses and antibiotics [24] and prevents antisep-tic agents from reaching the bacteria embedded in the dental plaques
If reducing bacterial growth in the dental plaques with chlo-rhexidine did not result in a significant reduction in NP, per-haps there are other unrecognized niches for respiratory pathogens between the oropharynx and the lungs that are implicated in the development of lower respiratory tract infec-tions It has been shown that the lungs of normal animals are not able to clear bacteria present in the form of biofilm frag-ments enclosed in artificial matrices [25] As such, endotra-cheal tubes may serve as foci for bacteria in the biofilm that invariably forms on the inner lumen Once the bacteria are well established, the bacterial burden attains high levels, and the biofilm, when fractured and displaced into the lower airways, acts as inoculum for the development of pneumonia [26] Unless they are able to eradicate such biofilms, oral antiseptic agents alone might fall short of attaining their objective Our analysis has several important limitations First, there were major differences between the studies conducted in the
car-Figure 1
Impact of oral decontamination with chlorhexidine on nosocomial pneumonia
Impact of oral decontamination with chlorhexidine on nosocomial pneumonia Random effects model CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
Figure 2
Impact of oral decontamination with chlorhexidine on mortality
Impact of oral decontamination with chlorhexidine on mortality Random effects model CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
Trang 5diac surgery population [9,12] versus those performed in ICU
settings [10,11] Patients admitted for elective cardiac surgery
were likely to have different comorbid conditions and better
physiological status at the time of intubation than were
patients intubated emergently Moreover, the length of
mechanical ventilation for cardiac surgery and ICU patients
would be significantly different such that colonization with
highly resistant bacteria in ICU patients would be less
amena-ble to chlorhexidine treatment [11] Second, all of the trials for
the meta-analysis were conducted in academic teaching
cent-ers, and so it is unclear if these results are generalizable to
other institutions Third the trials used different approaches for
the control arms Two investigations [9,11] used placebos that
were completely indistinguishable from chlorhexidine by color,
taste, and odor, whereas the other trials relied on either
stand-ard oral care or Listerine This may have resulted in
confound-ing when the data were pooled Fourth, even though we were
able to pool results across four trials, the combined sample
size may still have been inadequate for detecting important
clinical differences
Conclusion
In this meta-analysis, we failed to find any clinical benefits of
regular oral chlorhexidine application on the incidence of NP
and mortality rate in critically ill patients requiring mechanical
ventilation Although colonization of dental plaques with
path-ogenic bacteria may be a precursor for the disease,
chlorhex-idine based decontamination of oral microbial flora alone might
not be sufficient to reduce the burden of bacteria responsible
for NP Routine oral care in ICU settings should be pursued
along with other preventive measures aimed at reducing
bio-film formation pending the results of ongoing trials addressing
oral mechanical interventions and silver coated endotracheal
tubes
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests
Authors' contributions
LP conducted the literature search, performed the statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript RS assisted in the litera-ture search and entered the data into the designated software AES conceived of the study, reviewed all selected studies, and edited the manuscript All authors read and approved the final manuscript
References
1. Kollef MH: Prevention of hospital-associated pneumonia and
ventilator-associated pneumonia Crit Care Med 2004,
32:1396-1405.
2. Osmon SB, Kollef MH: Prevention of pneumonia in the hospital
setting Clin Chest Med 2005, 26:135-142.
3 Arozullah A, Khuri S, Henderson W, Daley J, Participants in the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program:
Development and validation of a multi-factorial risk index for predicting postoperative pneumonia after major noncardiac
surgery Ann Intern Med 2001, 135:847-857.
4 Fourrier F, Duvivier B, Boutigny H, Rourrel-Delvallez M, Chopin C:
Colonization of dental plaque: a source of nosocomial
infec-tions in intensive care unit patients Crit Care Med 1998,
26:301-308.
5 Garrouste-Ortegas M, Chevret S, Arlet G, Marie O, Rouveau M,
Popoff N, Schlemmer B: Oropharyngeal or gastric colonization and nosocomial pneumonia in adult intensive care unit patients: a prospective study based on genomic DNA analysis.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997, 156:1647-1655.
6 El-Solh A, Pietrantoni C, Bhat A, Okada M, Zambon J, Aquilina A,
Berbary E: Colonization of dental plaques: A reservoir of respi-ratory pathogens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in
institu-tionalized elders Chest 2004, 126:1575-1582.
7. Munro C, Grap MJ: Oral health and care in the intensive care
unit: state of the science Am J Crit Care 2004, 13:25-33.
8. Veksler A, Kayrouz G, Newman M: Reduction of salivary bacteria
by preprocedural rinses with chlorhexidine 0.12% J
Periodon-tol 1991, 62:649-651.
9. DeRiso A, Ladowski J, Dillon T, Justice J, Peterson A: Chlorhexi-dine gluconate 0.12% oral rinse reduces the incidence of total nosocomial respiratory infection and nonprophylactic sys-temic antibiotic use in patients undergoing heart surgery.
Chest 1996, 109:1556-1561.
10 Fourrier F, Cau-Pottier E, Boutigny H, Roussel-Delvallez M,
Jourdain M, Chopin C: Effects of dental plaque antiseptic decontamination on bacterial colonization and nosocomial
infections in critically ill patients Intensive Care Med 2000,
26:1239-1247.
11 Fourrier F, Dubois D, Pronnier P, Herbecq P, Leroy O, Desmettre
T, Pottier-Cau E, Boutigny H, Di Pompeo C, Durocher A,
Roussel-Delvallez M, for the PIRAD Study Group: Effect of gingival and dental plaque antiseptic decontamination on nosocomial infections acquired in the intensive care unit: A double-blind
placebo controlled multicenter study Crit Care Med 2005,
33:1728-1735.
12 Houston S, Hougland P, Anderson J, LaRocco M, Kennedy V,
Gen-try L: Effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate oral rinse
in reducing prevalence of nosocomial pneumonia in patients
undergoing heart surgery Am J Crit Care 2002, 11:567-570.
13 Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF:
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of rand-omized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement Quality of
Reporting of Meta-analyses Lancet 1999, 354:1896-1900.
14 Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M: The hazards of scoring the
quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis JAMA 1999,
282:1054-1060.
15 Higgins JP, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a
meta-analysis Stat Med 2002, 21:1539-1558.
16 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in
meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test BMJ 1997,
315:629-634.
17 Genuit T, Bochicchio G, Napolitano L, McCarter R, Roghman M:
Prophylactic chlorhexidine oral rinse decreases
ventilator-Key messages
• Dental plaques are considered an important reservoir
for pathogenic bacteria associated with lower
respira-tory tract infection
• Topical administration of bactericidal agents is effective
in controlling dental plaque formation in critically ill
patients
• The use of topical chlorhexidine does not result in
sig-nificant reduction in the incidence of NP in mechanically
ventilated patients
• Additional research is needed to determine the
effec-tiveness of combined chemical and mechanical
inter-ventions on the rate of NP
Trang 6associated pneumonia in surgical ICU patients Surg Infect
(Larchmt) 2001, 2:5-18.
18 Rodriguez Artalejo F, Garcia Caballero J, Aguado Matorras A, del
Rey Calero R: Oral lavage with chlorhexidine and hospital
pneumonia Med Clin (Barc) 1987, 89:36.
19 Grap M, Munro C, Elswick R, Sessler C, Ward K: Duration of action of a single early oral application of chlorhexidine on oral microbial flora in mechanically ventilated patients: A pilot
study Heart Lung 2004, 33:83-91.
20 Bonten MJ, Bergmans DC, Ambergen AW, de Leeuw PW, van der
Geest S, Stobberingh EE, Gaillard CA: Risk factors for pneumo-nia and colonization of respiratory tract and stomach in
mechanically ventilated ICU patients Am J Respir Crit Care
Med 1996, 154:1339-1346.
21 Sole ML, Poalillo FE, Byers JF, Ludy JE: Bacterial growth in secretions and on suctioning equipment of orally intubated
patients: a pilot study Am J Crit Care 2002, 11:141-149.
22 Longman L, Higham S, Bucknall R, Kaye S, Edgar W, Field E:
Signs and symptoms in patients with salivary gland
hypofunc-tion Postgrad Med J 1997, 73:93-97.
23 Loesche W, Schork A, Terpenning M, Chen Y, Stoll J: Factors which influence levels of selected organisms in saliva of older
individuals J Clin Microbiol 1995, 33:2550-2557.
24 Prince AS: Biofilms, antimicrobial resistance, and airway
infec-tion N Engl J Med 2002, 347:1110-1111.
25 Costerton W, Veeh R, Shirtliff M, Pasmore M, Post C, Ehrlich G:
The application of biofilm science to the study and control of chronic bacterial infections J Clin Invest 2003,
112:1466-1477.
26 Adair C, Gorman S, Feron B, Byers LM, Jones DS, Goldsmith CE,
Moore JE, Kerr JR, Curran MD, Hogg G, et al.: Implications of
endotracheal tube biofilm for ventilator-associated
pneumo-nia Intensive Care Med 1999, 25:1072-1076.